Skip to main content

Full text of "Sustainable Development - Transforming America under U.N. AGENDA 21"

See other formats

eco'logic Special Report 

Sustainable Development: Transforming 

by Henry Lamb 

Environmental Conservation Organization Hollow Rock, Tennessee 

December 1,2005 

As the "sustainable development" movement continues to gain momentum, it is 
worthwhile to step back and take a long look at the big picture, painted with a broad 
brush to reveal what the United States might look like as the movement's vision is 
more fully implemented over the next 50 years or so. The picture painted here is based 
on official documents published by several government agencies and non-government 
organizations during the last decade. These documents were rarely reported in the 
news, and average working people have no idea what sustainable development really 
means, and even less knowledge of what is in store for the future. If the vision of 
sustainable development continues to unfold as it has in the last decade, life in the 
United States will be quite different in the future. 

The Vision Half the land area of the entire country will be designated "wilderness 
areas," where only wildlife managers and researchers will be allowed. These areas 
will be interconnected by "corridors of wilderness" to allow migration of wildlife, 
without interference by human activity. Wolves will be as plentiful in Virginia and 
Pennsylvania as they are now in Idaho and Montana. Panthers and alligators will roam 
freely from the Everglades to the Okefenokee and beyond. Surrounding these 
wilderness areas and corridors, designated "buffer zones" will be managed for 
"conservation objectives." The primary objective is "restoration and rehabilitation." 
Rehabilitation involves the repair of damaged ecosystems, while restoration usually 
involves the reconstruction of natural or semi-natural ecosystems. As areas are 
restored and rehabilitated, they are added to the wilderness designation, and the buffer 
zone is extended outward. Buffer zones are surrounded by what is called "zones of 
cooperation." This is where people live - in "sustainable communities." Sustainable 
communities are defined by strict "urban growth boundaries." Land outside the 
growth boundaries will be managed by government agencies, which grant permits for 
activities deemed to be essential and sustainable. Open space, to provide a "viewshed" 
and sustainable recreation for community residents will abut the urban boundaries. 
Beyond the viewshed, sustainable agricultural activities will be permitted, to support 

the food requirements of nearby communities. Sustainable communities of the future 
will bear little resemblance to the towns and cities of the 20th century. Single-family 
homes will be rare. Housing will be provided by public/private partnerships, funded 
by government, and managed by non-government "Home Owners Associations." 
Housing units will be designed to provide most of the infrastructure and amenities 
required by the residents. Shops and office space will be an integral part of each unit, 
and housing will be allocated on a priority basis to people who work in the unit - with 
quotas to achieve ethnic and economic balance. Schools, daycare, and recreation 
facilities will be provided. Each unit will be designed for bicycle and foot traffic, to 
reduce, if not eliminate, the need for people to use automobiles. Transportation 
between sustainable communities, for people and for commodities, will be primarily 
by light rail systems, designed to bridge wilderness corridors where necessary. The 
highways that remain will be super transport corridors, such as the "Trans-Texas 
Corridor" now being designed, which will eventually reach from Mexico to Canada. 
These transport corridors will also be designed to bridge wilderness corridors, and to 
minimize the impact on the environment. Government, too, will be different in a 
sustainable America. Human activity is being reorganized around ecoregions, which 
do not respect county or state boundaries. Therefore, the governing apparatus will be 
designed to regulate the activities within the entire region, rather than having multiple 
governing jurisdictions with services duplicated in each political subdivision. It is far 
more efficient to have regional governing authorities with centrally administered 

Sierra Club's proposal to reorganize North America into 21 Ecoregions. The 

Sierra Club, one of hundreds of non-government organizations actively working to 
bring about this transformation, has suggested that North America be divided into 21 
ecoregions, that ignore existing national, state, and county boundaries. In 1992, they 
published a special issue of their magazine which featured a map, and extensive 
descriptions of how these ecoregions should be managed. (1) The function of 
government will also change. The legislative function, especially at the local and state 
level, will continue to diminish in importance, while the administrative function will 
grow. Already, in some parts of the country, counties are combining, and city and 
county governments are consolidating. Regional governing authorities are developing; 
taking precedence over the participating counties, which will eventually evaporate. 
State governments will undergo similar attrition; as regulations are developed on an 
ecoregions basis, there will be less need for separate state legislation. The 
administrative functions of state governments will also collapse into a super-regional 
administrative unit, to eliminate unnecessary duplication of investment and services. 

The Reality This vision is quite attractive to many Americans, especially those born 
since 1970, who have been educated in the public school system. To these people, 

nothing is more important than saving the planet from the certain catastrophe that lies 
ahead, if people are allowed to continue their greedy abuse of natural resources. The 
public school system, and the media, have been quite successful is shaping new 
attitudes and values to support this vision of how the world should be. This vision did 
not suddenly spring from the mind of a Hollywood screenwriter. It has been evolving 
for most of the last century. Since the early 1960s, it has been gaining momentum. 
The rise of the environmental movement became the magnet which attracted several 
disparate elements of social change, now coalesced into a massive global movement, 
euphemistically described as sustainable development. The first Wilderness Act was 
adopted in 1964, which set aside nine million acres of wilderness so "our posterity 
could see what our forefathers had to conquer," as one Senator put it. Now, after 40 
years, 106.5 million acres are officially designated as wilderness. (2) At least eight 
bills have been introduced in the 109th Congress to add more wilderness to the 
system._(3) And every year, Congress is asked to designate more and more land as 
wilderness. Most of this land is already a part of a global system of ecoregions, 
recognized internationally as "Biosphere Reserves." In the United States, there are 47 
Biosphere Reserves, so designated by the United Nations Education, Science, and 
Cultural Organization, (4) which are a part of a global network of 482 Biosphere 
Reserves. This global network is the basis for implementing the U.N.'s Convention on 
Biological Diversity ,_[5) a treaty which the U.S. Senate chose not to ratify ._[6_1 The 
1 140-page instruction book for implementing this treaty, Global Biodiversity 
Assessment, provides graphic details about how society should be organized, and how 
land and resources should be managed, in order to make the world sustainable. This 
treaty was formulated by U.N. agencies and non-government organizations between 
1981 and 1992, when it was formally adopted by the U.N. Conference on 
Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro. Consider this instruction from the 
Global Biodiversity Assessment: 

"...representative areas of all major ecosystems in a region need to be reserved, 
that blocks should be as large as possible, that buffer zones should be 
established around core areas, and that corridors should connect these areas. 
This basic design is central to the recently proposed Wildlands Project in the 
United States." (7) 

Now consider "this basic design" as described in the Wildlands Project: 

"...that at least half of the land area of the 48 conterminous states should be 
encompassed in core reserves and inner corridor zones (essentially extensions 
of core reserves) within the next few decades.... Nonetheless, half of a region in 
wilderness is a reasonable guess of what it will take to restore viable 
populations of large carnivores and natural disturbance regimes, assuming that 

most of the other 50 percent is managed intelligently as buffer zones. 
Eventually, a wilderness network would dominate a region... with human 
habitations being the islands. The native ecosystem and the collective needs of 
non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of 
humans. " (8) 

Even though this treaty was not ratified by the United States, it is being effectively 
implemented by the agencies of government through the "Ecosystem Management 
Policy." The U.S. Forest service is actively working to identify and secure wilderness 
corridors to connect existing core wilderness areas. (9) Both state and federal 
governments have enacted legislation in recent years to provide for systematic 
acquisition of "open space," land suitable for restoration and rehabilitation, to expand 
wilderness areas, and to provide "viewsheds" beyond urban boundaries. In the last 
days of the Clinton Administration, the Forest Service adopted the "Roadless Area 
Conservation Rule," which identified 58.5 million acres from which access and 
logging roads were to be removed. In the West, the Forest Service and the Bureau of 
Land Management are driving ranchers off the land by reducing grazing allotments to 
numbers that make profitable operations impossible. Inholders, people who have 
recreational cabins on federal land, are discovering that their permits are not being 
renewed. The Fish and Wildlife Service is forcing people off their land through 
designations of "wetlands," and "critical habitat" which render the land unusable for 
profit-making activities. Much to the chagrin of the proponents of sustainable 
development, some of these policies have been slowed, but not reversed, by the Bush 
administration. Nevertheless, agencies of government, supported by an army of non- 
government organizations, continue to transform the landscape into the vision 
described in the Wildlands Project, and in the Global Biodiversity Assessment. 

Blueprint for Sustainable Development Other agencies of government are working 
with equal diligence, to create the "islands of human habitation," otherwise called 
sustainable communities. The blueprint for these communities was also adopted at the 
1992 U.N. Conference in Rio de Janeiro. Its title is "Agenda 21." This 300-page 
document contains 40 chapters loaded with recommendations to govern virtually 
every facet of human existence. Agenda 21 is not a treaty. It is a "soft law" policy 
document which was signed by President George H.W. Bush, and which does not 
require Senate ratification. One of the recommendations contained in the document is 
that each nation establish a national council to implement the rest of the 
recommendations. On June 29, 1993, President Bill Clinton issued Executive Order 
Number 12852 which created the President's Council on Sustainable Development. 
(10) Its 25 members included most Cabinet Secretaries, representatives from The 
Nature Conservancy, the Sierra Club and other non-government organizations, and a 
few representatives from industry. The PCSD set out to implement the 

recommendations of Agenda 21 administratively, where possible, and to secure new 
legislation when necessary. One of the publications of the Council is "Sustainable 
Communities, Report of the Sustainable Communities Task Force." (11) This 
document, in very generalized language, makes sustainable communities sound like 
the perfect solution to all the world's ills. Another document, however, describes in 
much more precise detail exactly what sustainable communities will be. This 
document was prepared by the Department of Housing and Urban Development as a 
report to the U.N. Conference on Human Settlements in Istanbul, June, 1996. This 
report says that current lifestyles in the United States will "...demolish much of 
nature's diversity and stability, unless a re-balance can be attained - an urban-rural 
industrial re-balance with ecology, as a fundamental paradigm of authentic, 
meaningful national/global human security." (12) This highly detailed 25-page report 
goes on to describe the sustainable community of the future: 

"...Community Sustainability Infrastructures [designed for] efficiency and 
livability that encourages: in-fill over sprawl: compactness, higher density low- 
rise residential: transit-oriented (TODs) and pedestrian-oriented development 
(PODs): bicycle circulation networks; work-to-home proximity; mixed-use- 
development: co-housing, housing over shops, downtown residential; inter- 
modal transportation malls and facilities ...where trolleys, rapid transit, trains 
and biking, walking and hiking are encouraged by infrastructures." 

"For this hopeful future we may envision an entirely fresh set of infrastructures 
that use fully automated, very light, elevated rail systems for daytime metro 
region travel and nighttime goods movement, such as have been conceptualized 
and being positioned for production at the University of Minnesota in 
Minneapolis; we will see all settlements linked up by extensive bike, recreation 
and agro-forestry "E-ways" (environment-ways) such as in Madison, 
Wisconsin; we will find healthy, productive soils where there is [now] decline 
and erosion, through the widespread use of remineralization from igneous and 
volcanic rock sources (much of it the surplus quarry fines, or "rockdust", from 
concrete and asphalt-type road construction or from reservoir silts); we will be 
growing foods, dietary supplements and herbs that make over our unsustainable 
reliance upon foods and medicines that have adverse soil, environmental, or 
health side-effects. Less and less land will go for animal husbandry, and more 
for grains, tubers and legumes." (13) 

Sustainable communities cannot emerge as the natural outgrowth of free people 
making individual choices in a free market economy. Nor can they be mandated in the 
United States, as they might be in nations that live under dictatorial rule. Therefore, 
the PCSD developed a strategy to entice or coerce local communities to begin the 

transition to sustainability. The EPA provided challenge grants, and visioning grants 
to communities that would undertake the process toward sustainability. Grants were 
also made available to selected non-government organizations to launch a visioning 
process in local communities. This process relies on a trained facilitator who uses a 
practiced, "consensus building" model to lead selected community participants in the 
development of "community vision." This vision inevitably sets forth a set of goals - 
each of which can be found in the recommendations of Agenda 21 - that become the 
basis for the development of a comprehensive community plan. (14) According to the 
International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), 6,400 local 
communities in 113 countries have become involved in the sustainable communities 
Local Agenda 21 process since 1995. (15) ICLEI is one of several international non- 
government organizations whose mission is to promote sustainable development and 
sustainable communities at the local level. Dozens of similar national NGOs are at 
work all across the United States. A cursory search on the term "sustainable 
communities" through Google or Yahoo will return a staggering number of responses. 
The federal government deepened its involvement in the transformation of America 
by providing millions of dollars in grants to the American Planning Association to 
develop model legislation which embodies the principles of sustainable development. 
The publication, Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook: Model Statutes for Planning 
and the Management of Change, provides model legislation to be adopted by states. 
Typically, this legislation, when adopted, requires the creation of a statewide 
comprehensive land use plan that defines the administrative mechanisms for regional 
government agencies, and provides planning models for counties to use in creating 
county- wide land use plans. Municipalities within the county are required to produce 
a plan that conforms with, and is integrated into the county and state plans. (16) Using 
the coercive power of the federal budget, which the PCSD describes as using 
"financial incentives and disincentives," the federal government had little trouble 
getting states to rush to adopt some form of the model legislation. The state of 
Wisconsin, for examples, says this about its comprehensive planning act: 

"The Comprehensive Planning Law was developed in response to the widely 
held view that state planning laws were outdated and inconsistent with the 
current needs of Wisconsin communities. Commonly recognized as 
Wisconsin's "Smart Growth" legislation, significant changes to planning-related 
statutes were approved through the 1999-2001 state biennial budget. Under the 
new law, any program or action of a town, village, city, county, or regional 
planning commission, after January 1, 2010, that affects land use must be 
guided by, and consistent with, an adopted Comprehensive Plan, s. 66. 1001, 
Wis. Stats."_Q7) 

The APA's Legislative Guidebook offers several forms of the model legislation. States 
have considerable latitude in the legislation that is adopted. Consequently, each state's 
legislation may be different, and may impose different requirements on county and 
city governments. Regardless of the difference, however, they all contain the basic 
principles set forth in Agenda 21, and they all require the development of plans that 
result in the implementation of the recommendations contained in Agenda 21. One of 
the fundamental elements of all the plans requires limiting development (growth) to 
certain areas within the county. Planners draw lines on maps, supposedly to prevent 
development in "environmentally sensitive" areas, but which, in fact, are often quite 
arbitrary and sometimes influenced by political considerations. The value of land 
inside the development areas skyrockets, while the value of land outside the 
development areas plummets - with no hope of future appreciation. Another common 
element of these plans is to limit the activity that may occur within the various plan 
designations. In King County, Washington, for example, property owners in some 
parts of the county are required to leave 65% of their land unused, in its "natural" 

"Known as the 65-10 Rule, it calls for landowners to set aside 65 percent of 
their property and keep it in its natural, vegetative state. According to the rule, 
nothing can be built on this land, and if a tree is cut down, for example, it must 
be replanted. Building anything is out of the question." (18) 

These plans also focus on reducing automobile use. Measures sometimes include 
making driving less convenient by constructing speed bumps and obstructive center 
diversions on residential streets, prohibiting single occupant use of certain traffic 
lanes, as well as a variety of extra "tax" measures for auto use. Oregon is 
experimenting with a mileage tax, based on miles driven. London has imposed a 
special tax on automobiles that enter a designated "high traffic area." Several U.S. 
cities are studying this idea. Santa Cruz, California's plan seeks to ban auto use in 
certain municipal areas. Hundreds of NGOs have popped up to form a "World Carfree 
Network" (19) which lobbies local officials to reduce or eliminate auto use. 
Alternative transportation is another common element of these plans. Light rail is a 
favorite, even in communities that have no hope of achieving economic viability. 
Proponents of sustainable development argue that even if a light rail system has to be 
subsidized forever, it is a bargain just to get automobiles off the streets. Bicycle paths 
and "Trails" are always a substantial part of sustainable community plans. Housing in 
sustainable communities presents special problems. Space limitations, imposed by 
growth boundaries, force higher densities and smaller housing units. The term 
"McMansions" has been coined to describe new homes that are larger than necessary, 
as determined by sustainable development enthusiasts. Multiple housing units are 
preferred over single-family structures. Since sustainable communities cannot grow 

horizontally, they must grow vertically - if they grow at all. These problems have 
produced a variety of responses. Some of the new terms that are becoming common in 
sustainable communities are: Limited Equity Co-ops; Resident-controlled Rentals; 
Co-housing; Mutual Housing; and many others. (20) Invariably, these schemes are 
alternatives to the conventional single-family home. Most often, these schemes vest 
ownership in a corporation that owns the housing units, and residents may, but not 
always, own shares of the corporation. Living conditions are determined, not by the 
individual resident, but by the corporation. Financing for the construction of these 
units, typically requires construction to meet "sustainable" standards, if federal money 
is used, either directly or indirectly, as in a mortgage guarantee. Single family homes 
and business structures that already exist when a community is transformed to 
sustainability are a special problem, since they rarely meet the criteria required by the 
comprehensive plan. APA's Legislative Guidebook offers a new solution for this 
problem: "Amortization of Non-Conforming Uses." This means that a city or county 
may designate a period of time in which existing structures must be brought into 
conformity with the new regulations. 

"But for homeowners who live in a community that adopts the Guidebook's 
vision, the APA amortization proposal means the extinguishing, over time, of 
their right to occupy their houses, and without just compensation for loss of that 
property. How long they have before they must forfeit their homes would be 
completely up to the local government." (21) 

Eminent domain is another tool used by government to bring their communities into 
compliance with the sustainable communities vision. With increasing frequency, 
governments have used this technique to take land, not for "public use," as required by 
the U.S. Constitution, but for whatever the government deems to be a "public benefit." 
(22) Governments may condemn and seize the private property of an individual, and 
then give, or sell it, to another private owner who promises to use the property in a 
way that satisfies the government's vision. Plans adopted at the local level can have 
extremely detailed requirements. It is not unusual for these plans to specify the types 
of vegetation that must be used for landscaping, the color of paint to be used - inside 
and outside the structure, and even the types of appliances and fixtures that must be 
used. Businesses can be required to use signs that conform in size and color to all the 
other signs in the neighborhood. There is virtually no limit to the restrictions that 
these plans may impose. These comprehensive plans are often complicated by an 
assortment of sub-authorities, such as Historic Districts; Conservation Districts; 
Economic Development Districts; Scenic Highways and Byways; Scenic Rivers and 
Streams; and more. These quasi-government agencies are most often created by 
ordinance, and populated with political appointees. They are frequently given 
unwarranted authority to dictate the use of private property within their jurisdiction. 

Individuals caught up in conflict with these agencies are often frustrated by the 
indifference of elected officials, and financially drained by the legal costs required to 
resist their dictates. In one form or another, sustainable development has reached 
every corner of the United States. It has impacted millions of Americans, most of 
whom have no idea that their particular problem is related to a global initiative 
launched more than 15 years ago, by the United Nations. Many, if not most of the 
bureaucrats at the local and state level, charged with implementing these policies, 
have no knowledge of their origin. What's worse, few people have considered the 
possible negative consequences of these policies. 

Consequences of Sustainable Development What is perhaps the most serious 
consequence of sustainable development is the least visible: the transformation of the 
policy-making process. The idea that government is empowered by the consent of the 
governed is the idea that set the United States apart from all previous forms of 
government. It is the principle that unleashed individual creativity and free markets, 
which launched the spectacular rise of the world's most successful nation. The idea, 
and the process by which citizens can reject laws they don't want, simply by replacing 
the officials who enacted them, makes the ballot box the source of power for every 
citizen, and the point of accountability for every politician. When public policy is 
made by elected officials who are accountable to the people who are governed, then 
government is truly empowered by the consent of the governed. Sustainable 
development has designed a process through which public policy is designed by 
professionals and bureaucrats, and implemented administratively, with only symbolic, 
if any, participation by elected officials. The professionals and bureaucrats who 
actually make the policies are not accountable to the people who are governed by 
them. This is the "new collaborative decisions process," called for by the PCSD. (23) 
Because the policies are developed at the top, by professionals and bureaucrats, and 
sent down the administrative chain of command to state and local governments, 
elected officials have little option but to accept them. Acceptance is further ensured 
when these policies are accompanied by "economic incentives and disincentives," 
along with lobbying and public relations campaigns coordinated by government- 
funded non-government organizations. Higher housing costs are an immediate, visible 
consequence of sustainable development. Land within the urban growth boundary 
jumps in value because supply is limited, and continues to increase disproportionately 
in value as growth continues to extinguish supply. These costs must be reflected in the 
price of housing. Add to this price pressure, the regulatory requirements to use "green 
seal" materials; that is, materials that are certified, either by government or a 
designated non-government organization, to have been produced by methods deemed 
to be "sustainable." Higher taxes are another immediate, visible, and inevitable 
consequence of sustainable development. Higher land values automatically result in 
higher tax bills. Sustainable development plans include another element that affects 

property taxes. Invariably, these plans call for the acquisition of land for open space, 
for parks, for greenways, for bike-and- hike trails, for historic preservation, and many 
other purposes. Every piece of property taken out of the private sector by government 
acquisition, forces the tax burden to be distributed over fewer taxpayers. The 
inevitable result is a higher rate for each remaining taxpayer. Another consequence of 
sustainable development is the gross distortion of justice. Bureaucrats who draw lines 
on maps create instant wealth for some people, while prohibiting others from realizing 
any gain on their investments. In communities across the country, people who live 
outside the downtown area have lived with the expectation that one day, they could 
fund their retirement by selling their land to new home owners as the nearby city 
expanded. A line drawn on a map steals this expectation from people who live outside 
the urban growth boundary. Proponents of sustainable development are forced to 
argue that the greater good for the community is more important than negative 
impacts on any individual. There is no equal justice, when government arbitrarily 
takes value from one person and assigns it to another. Nowhere is this injustice more 
visible than when eminent domain is used to implement sustainable development 
plans. The Kelo vs. The City of New London case brought the issue to public 
awareness, but in cities throughout the nation, millions of people are being displaced, 
with no hope of finding affordable housing, in the new, "sustainable" community. In 
Florida, this situation is particularly acute. Retirees have flocked to Florida and settled 
in mobile home parks to enjoy their remaining days, living on fixed incomes, too old 
or infirm to think about a new income producing career. Local governments across the 
state are condemning these parks, and evicting the residents, in order to use the land 
for development that fits the comprehensive plan, and which produces a higher tax 
yield. These people are the victims of the "greater good," as envisioned by the 
proponents of sustainable development. Less visible, but no less important, is the 
erosion of individual freedom. Until the emergence of sustainable development, a 
person's home was considered to be his castle. William Pitt expressed this idea quite 
powerfully in Parliament in 1763, when he said: 

"The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the force of the crown. 
It may be frail - its roof may shake - the wind may blow through it - the storm 
may enter, the rain may enter - but the King of England cannot enter - all his 
force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement." (24) 

No more. Sustainable development allows king-government to intrude into a person's 
home before it becomes his home, and dictate the manner and style to which the home 
must conform. Sustainable development forces the owner of an existing home to 
transform his home into a vision that is acceptable to king-government. Sustainable 
development is extinguishing individual freedom for the "greater good," as 
determined by king-government. 

Conclusion The question that must be asked is: will sustainable development really 
result in economic prosperity, environmental protection, and social equity for the 
current generation, without compromising the ability of future generations to meet 
their own needs? (25) Even in the early days of this century-long transition to 
sustainability, there is growing evidence that the fundamental flaws in the concept 
will likely produce the opposite of the desired goals. Forests that have been taken out 
of productive use in order to conform to the vision of sustainable development have 
been burned to cinders, annihilating wildlife, including species deemed to be 
"endangered," resulting in the opposite of "environmental protection." Government- 
imposed restrictions on resource use in land that is now designated "wilderness," or 
"buffer zones" have resulted in shortages, accompanied by rapid price increases that 
result in the opposite of "economic prosperity." In sustainable communities, it is the 
poorest of the poor who are cast out of their homes to make way for the planners' 
visions; these victims would not define the experience as "social equity." Detailed 
academic studies show that housing costs rise inevitably as sustainable development is 
implemented. Traffic congestion is often worsened after sustainable development 
measures are installed. (26) And always, private property rights and individual 
freedom are diminished or extinguished. Sustainable development is a concept 
constructed on the principle that government has the right and the responsibility to 
regulate the affairs of people to achieve government's vision of the greatest good for 
all. The United States is founded on the principle that government has no rights or 
responsibility not specifically granted to it by the people who are governed. These two 
concepts cannot long coexist. One principle, or the other, will eventually dominate. 
For the last 15 years, sustainable development has been on the ascendancy, 
permeating state and local governments across the land. Only in the last few years 
have ordinary people begun to realize that sustainable development is a global 
initiative, imposed by the highest levels of government. People are just beginning to 
get a glimpse of the magnitude of the transformation of America that is underway. 

The question that remains unanswered is: will Americans accept this new sustainable 
future that has been planned for them and imposed upon them? Or, as Americans have 
done in the past, will they rise up in defense of their freedom, and demand that their 
elected officials force the bureaucrats and professionals to return to the role of serving 
the people who pay their salaries, by administering policies enacted only by elected 
officials, rather than conspiring to set the policies by which all the people must live. 


1. Sierra Club ecoregions: http ://www . 

2. (, a project 
of the Wilderness Institute, the Arthur Carhart National Wilderness Training Center, and the 
Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute. (October 27, 2005) 

3. Campaign for America's Wilderness 
( art.asp?PEB ART ID=397) (As of May 1, 2005) 

4. See Eco-logic Powerhouse, November, 2005, and 

5. Agenda Item 1(7), Report of the First Meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical 
and Technological Advice, Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, 
Second Meeting, 6-17 November, Jakarta, Indonesia, (UNEP/CBD/COP2/5, September 21, 

See also: . 

6. "How the Convention on Biological Diversity was Defeated," Sovereignty International, Inc, 
1998 - http://sovereigntv.freedom.Org/p/land/biotreatystop.htm . 

7. "Measures for conservation of biodiversity and Sustainable Use of its Components," Global 
Biodiversity Assessment, Cambridge University Press for the United Nations Environment 
Program, Section, p. 993. 

8. Reed F. Noss, "The Wildlands Project," Wild Earth, Special Issue, 1992, pp.13- 15. (Wild 
Earth is published by the Cenozoic Society, P.O. Box 492, Canton, NY 13617). 

9. Report to the Interagency Grizzly Bear Working Group on Wildlife Linkage Habitat, Prepared 
by Bill Ruediger, Endangered Species Program Leader, USDA Forest Service, Northern Region, 
Missoula, MT, February 1, 2001. See also: 

http : //www . eco . freedom . org/el/20020202/linkage . shtml . 

10. See: 

11. See: suscom.html 

12. "Community Sustainability; Agendas for Choice-making and Action," U.S. Department of 
Housing and Urban Development, September 22, 1995. See also: 

13. Ibid, pp 2 If. 

14. See And 
For a discussion of the consensus process, and sustainable communities. 

15. International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives web site, October 28, 2005 


16. Summary of the Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook, 2002 Edition, 

17. State of Wisconsin, Department of Administration web site: detail.asp?linksubcatid=366 

18., July 10, 2004,2933,124358,00.html 

19. See 

20. See for descriptions of these housing alternatives. 

21. "Forfeiting the American Dream: The HUD-Funded Smart Growth Guidebook's Attack on 
Homeownership," The Heritage Foundation 
(, July 2, 2002. 

22. "Eminent domain; eminent disaster," Eco-logic Powerhouse, August, 2005 
( , for a discussion on this issue. 

23. President's Council on Sustainable Development, We Believe Statement #8 

24. William Pitt, the elder, Earl of Chatham, speech in the House of Lords.— Henry Peter 
Brougham, Historical Sketches of Statesmen Who Flourished in the Time of George III, vol. 1, 
p. 52 (1839). ( 

25. Sustainable Development as defined by the U.N.'s Bruntland Commission report, Our 
Common Future, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), p. 43 

26. This website, provides an abundance of reports and 
studies that challenge effectiveness of sustainable development. 

Copyright (C) 2005, All rights reserved 

FAIR USE NOTICE: This may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the 
copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of criminal justice, political, 
human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such 
copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, 
this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for 
research and educational purposes. For more information go to: If you wish to 
use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the 
copyright owner.